On 2017-04-28 01:29:14 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I can confirm this observation. I bought the Intel 750 NVMe SSD last year,
> the device has 1GB DDR3 cache on it (power-loss protected), can do ~1GB/s of
> sustained O_DIRECT sequential writes. But when running pgbench, I can't push
> more than ~3
On 04/27/2017 07:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-04-27 10:29:48 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 04/27/2017 09:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-04-27 09:31:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 04/27/2017 08:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I would agree it isn't yet a widespread issue.
On 04/27/2017 06:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-04-27 09:31:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 04/27/2017 08:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Ok, based on the, few, answers I've got so far, my experience is
indeed skewed. A number of the PG users I interacted with over
the last couple years
Hi,
On 04/25/2017 06:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
I've lately seen more and more installations where the generation of
write-ahead-log (WAL) is one of the primary bottlenecks. I'm curious
whether that's primarily a "sampling error" of mine, or whether
that's indeed more common.
I see thos
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 12:17:22PM +, Dinesh Chandra 12108 wrote:
> Below is the output of Query SELECT * FROM pg_stats WHERE tablename='point'
> AND attname='domain_class_id' ;
>
>
> schemaname | tablename | attname | inherited | null_frac | avg_width
> | n_distinct | most_common_v
On 2017-04-27 10:29:48 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 04/27/2017 09:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-04-27 09:31:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > On 04/27/2017 08:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
>
> > > I would agree it isn't yet a widespread issue.
> >
> > I'm not yet sure ab
On 04/27/2017 09:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-04-27 09:31:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 04/27/2017 08:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I would agree it isn't yet a widespread issue.
I'm not yet sure about that actually. I suspect a large percentage of
people with such workloads ar
On 2017-04-27 09:31:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 04/27/2017 08:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok, based on the, few, answers I've got so far, my experience is indeed
> > skewed. A number of the PG users I interacted with over the last couple
> > years had WAL write ranges somewhe
On 04/27/2017 08:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Ok, based on the, few, answers I've got so far, my experience is indeed
skewed. A number of the PG users I interacted with over the last couple
years had WAL write ranges somewhere in the range of 500MB/s to 2.2GB/s
(max I'veseen). At that point WA
Hi,
On 2017-04-24 21:17:43 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've lately seen more and more installations where the generation of
> write-ahead-log (WAL) is one of the primary bottlenecks. I'm curious
> whether that's primarily a "sampling error" of mine, or whether that's
> indeed more common.
>
>
Hello everyone.
I have table "events" with 10 millions records. if have this fields:
Column | Type | Modifiers | Storage | Stats target | Description
-+-+-+--+--+-
11 matches
Mail list logo
